221–230 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The waiver for Secretary Mattis, a couple of bills that appear to be quite minor (I only skimmed them for a second): https://www.congress.gov/public-laws/115th-congress
Thanks. I didn't realize it was so easy to look up. Obvious in retrospect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again. Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.
As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out? I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military e…
It wasn't really that big a deal, it was as much a political statement on her part as it was on the administration's. It's concerning, but it is unlikely to become part of a pattern, the top officials at the Justice Department will soon be appointees of the administration rather than people that agreed to carry out necessary functions during the transition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm overreacting but as a green card holder myself, the cavalier attitude this administration has to people's lives fucking terrifies me. I don't want to go on vacation and then find I can't get back into America (where I have a job, a mortgage, a spouse, a social network and have lived for the past 9 years) because Trump suddenly took a dislike to my country of origin. I'm not even from a Muslim country, but w…
I don't know the future, but it is important to remember that the list of countries came from a failed nation list made by congress and the Obama administration (they also included Iran) [1]. Trump did not just pull it out of the air. Green cards are also permanent residences so legally that is much harder to stop than not extending or granting new visas. With that said, I'm against it and think it is bad policy on m…
Is it? I thought Trump had broad authority when it comes to who can cross the border (so your green card is still good, but no you can't come in).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't remember. What, specifically , did Obama say about Fox News? (I don't care about Jackson; I hope that civility has improved since then, though recent evidence casts doubt on that position.) Remember, the statement to beat is when Trump called journalists "among the most dishonest human beings on earth”.
President Obama was a bit more elegant but: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-b... http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/18/media/president-obama-fox-ne...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
President Obama was a bit more elegant but: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-b... http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/18/media/president-obama-fox-ne...
Sorry to disagree, but I don't see "Fox has a definite point of view" and "misinformation" as being comparable to "among the most dishonest human beings on earth". The first Obama quote says they're biased; the second Obama quote says they're lying; but the Trump quote attacks their character , not just their actions .
"If all you're doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it's very hard for you to think that you're going to vote for somebody who you've been told is taking the country in the wrong direction."
"It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."
You might think there is a difference between "attacks their character, not just their actions", but a person's actions are their character. President Obama was more elegant but his behavior is no different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's true. Reuters is going to treat media reporting in the US like they treat reporting in countries heavy on censorship and hostile to the media. Let's see if that improves the reporting of facts.
Reuters simply said they have experience reporting in authoritarian countries and they don't yet know how 'sharp' Trump will be regarding the media. They're basically saying Reuters is prepared to deal with that, assuming it becomes a reality. They are not saying it's currently the case. As far as I can tell the 'war on journalists' has almost entirely been words so far. The administration has been light with facts y…
Part of the issue, for me, isn't so much what Trump has done so far policy-wise, it's the environment this is all occurring in, and what Trump is setting up and what he has done in the past. If the legislature was in Democratic control, I wouldn't be so concerned. If Trump had actually divested his business, I might rest easier. If Trump weren't so much in the pockets of Russia for obvious reasons, it might not be so bad. And so forth and so on.
Instead, we have all of it happening simultaneously. To summarize:
1. You have a white supremacist in a central position in the white house.
2. There are concerns about Trump's vulnerability to Russia, with reports of his involvement in hacking, and evidence prior to the election that this is true.
3. To make (2) worse, you have a visible schism developing between Trump and the people who would know about those things, the intelligence and military communities. The president is actually essentially siding with Russia and distancing himself from US military and intelligence.
4. At the same time, he's bringing the FBI, who is in charge of domestic enforcement, more under his control, and eliminating segments of it that disagree with him. He rewards Comey, who arguably was complicit in using his position to sway the election.
5. The FBI itself reports concerns about white supremacy in law enforcement. So now you have white supremacists cuddling up to the people who are supposed to do something about white supremacy.
6. The other person who might be in a position to do something, the AG, also has a history of white supremacist positions.
7. Trump refuses to actually divest of himself of his business interests, creating huge conflicts of interests.
8. He places people with massive financial conflicts of interest in certain cabinet posts, essentially letting foxes run the henhouses.
9. He's actively hostile toward the press, who are simply doing what they should be doing and holding public officials to the high standard of scrutiny they should be held to.
Do I need to go on?
Essentially, there's no checks and balances anymore. At all. The person in the white house, who lost the popular vote, is behaving as if he's an organized crime boss. And the GOP is acting as if the ends always justifies the means, even if it means dismantling democratic processes. See NC for an example of this playing out.
This is why some people are freaking out. Because even if it's not currently fascism nationally, it's feeling very similar to it. I know those terms were used by those on the hard right about Obama, and maybe diluted the meaning of the term, but at the moment there's too much unchecked power. Way too much.
My political beliefs actually don't align well with either major party, but to me this is a very very very bad situation.
We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not we're jumping the gun. That's the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I don't doubt he's very smart. But there are both laws and traditions in place to prevent the kind of subservient lapdog press he wants to have. And he lacks the cajones to just toss the First Amendment out the window on a broad scale (yet). Reuters' point was that even without the First Amendment and other protections afforded journalists in America, they're capable of publishing important, relevant news anyway.…
My pet peeve is when people assume that being smart is the most important thing in politics (or any other endeavor). Clever people may make fewer mistakes, but when they do make them they are much more difficult to fix. Just as true for software as it is for running a country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realize that it may be a lot more fun and topical to blame Trump, but the HN gestalt has been discussing the increasingly hollowed-out nature of American news reporting for years now. Public trust of the press has been dropping for decades. If this manifests as "hey, we've all got to get back to real reporting", then it will be positive. (Not a mere rhetorical sop; that is genuinely my preferred, best-case outcome.…
Absolutely agreed. Depending on whether that 'you' is actually me or a general reader, I think my comment may have come off wrong. I'm not suggesting that the current tone in US news is a clear improvement, I'm just rejecting the claim that with this election we're in an unprecedented death-of-news situation. The state of most media in the US is deplorable. 'Fake news' sites aside, sources have been abandoned for acc…
My apologies for lack of clarity. Meant in general.
I often wish that was two separate words in the common English. ("Y'all" is actually the correct word, but is dialect, so people who don't know that dialect may not understand its nuances correctly.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received? With far less money many more organization have done much more charitable work. One such example is the NAACP. They've received ~16mill which is a stark contrast between the Clinton Foundation who has received in th…
You're concern trolling. The information is readily out there. Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous? The Clinton Founda…
You're misunderstanding my point. If the money is going into the Clinton Foundation and what's coming out isn't on par with what other organizations are doing with their funds then something is fishy. I don't see how that observation could fly over you head so let's go over it.
I said "It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received?"
I am directly asking the question: how does the money Clinton's Foundation Inputs and Outputs compare to the Inputs and Outputs of other organizations. The NAACP and American Red Cross are two of the most ubiquitous charity and social benifit organizations out there. I'm drawing attention to the fact that they recive similar amounts of money and yet produce faaar more output then the Clinton Foundation and that's with the Red Cross being corrupt as hell.
"The Clinton Foundation website has a litany of literature on its efforts around the world. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation on overall 94.74/100 score."
What list of engagements and activities have they done. All I can find is the "Annual Report 2015 [0]" from the other responce. This shows off a few things...
* We helped 31,000 U.S. schools get healthier.
* We reached 105,000 farmers in East Africa.
This is more of an advertising heavy goal. Lets call this 1 million since it involves marketing which is the Clinton Foundations's (and any charity or political groups) strong suit.
* Our social enterprises have benefited 450,000 people.
* We digitized 1.8 million climate records in Kenya.
* We launched new efforts to improve literacy in Haiti.
and
" The Clinton Foundation has helped to facilitate more than $120 million in foreign direct investment into Haiti and provides capacity building assistance and access to markets for Haitian businesses and entrepreneurs."
So that's ~30 mill + 1 million for a fund raiser. They also paid for financial education of 1000 women so lets call that 10 million.
* The CGI community responded to earthquakes in Nepal.
Lets call it 500k for a water filtration system and 10mill for the Fin-access.
* We partnered to reduce deaths from prescription drug abuse.
So basically they lobbied to get the government to buy a large ammount of anti-OD nasil spray devices. Let's call this Hillary's job as a congresswoman so it should be covered by her salary.
* We gave students a reason to bet on the future.
* We led the CHARGE for girls' education.
* We invested in our youngest generation.
* We mobilized 4,050 hours of service.
Now when we bring all the numbers down it looks a little something like this:
2.7+2+10+10.5+41+3+5+1+2 = 77.2 million by my guesstimates (I totalled it up for you just in case you were too blinded by your aligance to a populairty contest).
Now sure.. lets say I was stupid and my numbers are bad so lets double it!
77.2 * 2 = 154.4 million
Ok... there's still a big gap here... lets add 40% for management overhead.
154.4 * 1.4 = 216.16 million
Ok.... I don't know what's going on here.... Hillary and Bill said they're fighting for the people but it seems to me that they're just rich people trying to exploit all of us and are in it for themselves...
No.. that can't be it....
In short, I should kindly fuck off out of here with what is either out right lies or willful ignorance.
But seriously, I don't think the figures I quoted were in the incorrect magnitutde for the funding of these programs. Do you? Could you please who the results of these ogranizations? Like tangable results? I mean I can do that for the NAACP LDF (http://www.naacpldf.org/events) and the Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/latest-news) but I can't do that for the clinton foundation.